A BUBBLING CAULDRON

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Why You Can't Trust Righeimer With His Charter

PROMISES A LEXUS -
DELIVERED A YUGO
OK, it's time to talk seriously about Jim Righeimer's
Charter. Make that "more seriously",
because many of us who oppose his scheme to take over Costa Mesa
government completely by trying to convince a typically disengaged
electorate that his bogus plan will solve every single problem in
the city by providing "local control" HAVE been taking it VERY seriously for most of the past year. Righeimer
is, essentially, promising us a Lexus and has delivered a Yugo.BECOME A "BIG BOY"
From the very beginning, when Righeimer first proposed his plan in
November of 2011, his motives were suspect. He told us it was
time to join the "big boys" - the 25% of California
cities that have a Charter form of government. He avoided
mentioning that 75% of the cities in this state remain General Law
cities and benefit from the protections from corruption that a
Charter makes so possible.

IGNORES BELL
Righeimer shrugged off suggestions that Bell was a Charter city
and it became the poster child for corruption around the country.
He blamed the Bell fiasco on one person, Robert Rizzo, but
neglected to mention that a disengaged electorate permitted the
conversion to a Charter city with a vote of only 450 voters in a
special election.FEAR AND MISINFORMATION
For nine months - that's been the gestation period of Jim
Righeimer's Charter so far since he first hatched the
scheme in November, 2011 - he has attempted to frighten the voters
with the specter of financial ruin, when, in fact, things were
getting better through the cooperative efforts of the staff and
the fiscal management of the previous administration began to have an
effect.
Along the way he conveniently ignored the fact that nearly all of
the California cities that have recently declared bankruptcy are
Charter cities.

MORELLO - BANKRUPTCY AN OPTION
In fact, Phil Morello, president of the Costa Mesa
Republican Assembly and one of the most visible
supporters of Jim Righeimer's Charter, may have actually let the
cat out of the bag recently. At the July 31st council meeting,
when the council took the vote to place it on the agenda, Morello
casually mentioned that one acceptable way out of our financial
difficulties would be municipal bankruptcy! More than a few of us
who pay attention to these issues wondered if he might not have
been telegraphing the plan if the Charter is adopted in November. That would be the ONLY way Righeimer can get rid of the employee association contracts.JUST NOT THIS CHARTER
I've said it before and will say it again - and again and again, if necessary - I am NOT necessarily against Costa Mesa becoming a Charter City. The problem is THIS
Charter, and the lack of safeguards included to head-off a Bell-type
situation. It was clear from the outset when Righeimer first charged
contract City Attorney Tom Duarte to return with the details in writing
of what it would take to convert our city from a General Law city to a
Charter city, that he had an agenda. Then he, himself, did all the work
by cutting and pasting snippets from other city's charters in a
patchwork that blended his own, personal political agenda and the lack
of controls mentioned earlier.

HE JUST DOESN'T LIKE RULES
From the first day Righeimer became part of the government of our city -
when he was appointed to the Planning Commission by then-mayor Allan Mansoor
despite the fact that he had failed to meet the application deadline
and after having lived in our city for only a few months - it was
obvious that he didn't like all those nasty rules that he had to
follow. When Mansoor appointed him in what certainly looked like an act
of political patronage for the help Righeimer and his buddy, Dana
Rohrabacher, gave to him during his re-election campaign in 2006, the
handwriting - graffiti, actually - was on the wall. The Orange County
Republican Party, skippered by Scott Baugh, was ready to take over our city and had massaged the dim and gullible Mansoor as the preamble to that effort.

MENSINGER APPOINTMENT LOCKED IT UP - NOT!
Righeimer ran unsuccessfully for City Council in 2008 and when he was
finally elected to the City Council in 2010 - the first time he was
actually elected to something in his political life - his frustration
with the rules became even more apparent. After he facilitated the
appointment of his pal, Steve Mensinger, to the City Council he
apparently thought he had all he needed to take over - a 4-person
majority on the council. He was wrong, of course, because even a
super-majority has to follow the rules.

PREMATURE LAUNCH
When he and Gary Monahan hatched (no offense to our City CEO, Tom Hatch)
their outsourcing scheme at Monahan's pub and launched it prematurely
by issuing layoff notices to more than 200 municipal employees on St.
Patrick's Day, 2011 they made a major gaffe - several, actually - that
has resulted in millions of dollars in litigation costs and has done
immeasurable damage to the reputation of our city. And Huy Pham
jumped from the roof of City Hall. And then-mayor Monahan chose to continue to
pour beer for his customers rather than see to the needs of the
employees of our city.

AMBITION AND UNION-HATRED DRIVES HIM
All this because Righeimer has a long-standing hatred of unions and has
spent much of his political life trying to crush their influence. In
his haste to start tossing municipal employees out the door he and his
pals forgot to follow the rules. This has become a familiar theme. The
great irony of that outsourcing fiasco is that, if they had actually
just followed the rules last year, it is possible that a big chunk of
their outsourcing scheme might have been consummated by now. Instead
we, the taxpayers and voters of this city, are paying one of the most
expensive law firms around, Jones Day, nearly $500 per hour with NO CAP on it. In the fiscal year that ended June 30th we had paid them nearly $1 million and that tally isn't complete yet.

UNWILLING TO NEGOTIATE
So strong is his union hatred that it has virtually rendered Righeimer
incapable of considering any kind of serious negotiation with the
employee associations in our city. NOTE: They are NOT unions - they don't have the right to stage job actions, for example.
Even though both the police and fire departments are seriously
understaffed, the Righeimer-led council refuses to permit hiring
replacements or to fill the pipeline with new folks to cover anticipated
retirements. They demand a second pension tier be established BEFORE replacements
will be approved, yet have refused to consider serious offers made by
both bargaining units. And, they've spent over $40,000 on a labor
negotiator in just a few months to facilitate their plans. As a result,
every resident, visitor to our city and business within our borders
are at much greater risk. He is not only willing, but apparently eager,
to place our public safety at risk to further his political future.

MORE ABUSE OF POWER
There are many, many examples of his attempts to abuse the power of his
office, but the last time the council met - in a hastily-called "emergency" meeting to "clean up some administrative issues" - we saw just how dangerous he will be if HIS
charter passes in November. That meeting - covered on this blog and in
the local media - demonstrated the lengths to which Righeimer and his
pals on this council will go to hide the truth from the voters of this
city. It was called with only hours left before the deadline to submit
the paperwork to the Registrar of Voters and at a time that left NO
time for the opposition to re-frame its argument against the charter -
their deadline had passed. By approving the elimination of a reference
to "no-bid contracts" in the Ballot Descriptions, Summary and Enumerations of Powers
section that is required by law to be included in a charter proposal,
Righeimer and the council demonstrated their disdain for the voters -
even more than they've been showing in recent months. They know that
the voters will NOT, in all likelihood, read the entire text of the
charter. They'll depend on that summary to tell them what they need to
know - and it doesn't do that now.3 MONTHS AND COUNTING...
We now have 13 weeks until the election. During that time there will be, so far, five (5) candidate forums at which Jim Righeimer's Charter
might be discussed. One of the meetings, on September 5th, is
dedicated specifically to that subject. I fully expect to see the
proponents of the charter attempt to manipulate the facts and,
perhaps, flat-out lie to the public about this issue. They will almost
certainly demonize those opposing it. I encourage each of you to pay
attention, attend as many of those events as you can or watch the taped
version on CMTV - each will be covered. This issue is too important to
just casually stroll into the voting booth and flip a coin. It is the
second-most important decision the voters of this city will make - the vote to
incorporate nearly 60 years ago being the first. We'll try to help you
understand the issues and the candidates as the campaign season move
along.

TRUST AND A PROMISE NOT DELIVERED
As Daily Pilot columnist Jeffrey Harlan and former city executive and frequent council critic Perry Valantine have reminded us in recent weeks, this is really a matter of trust. So far, Jim Righeimer has failed that test. Remember, he promises us a Lexus and has delivered a Yugo - with him at the wheel. Vote NOonJim Righeimer's Charter.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Nine Is The Magic Number!

DEADLINE MET... Shortly after 5:00 p.m. today, Friday, August 10th, the Costa
Mesa City Clerk's office released the names of the candidates who
completed and submitted the necessary paperwork by the deadline to run
for a seat on the Costa Mesa City Council in November.

TRIPLE THE SEATS AVAILABLEThere
are nine (9) candidates who completed the paperwork and three of those
are still having the necessary signatures required for this process
being certified by the Registrar of Voters.

AND THE CANDIDATES ARE...
Here is the list of those souls who are running for one of the three seats available on the Costa Mesa City Council in November:

Sandra L. "Sandy" Genis

Tom Hopkins

Colin McCarthy

Al Melone

Steve Mensinger

Gary Monahan

James Rader

John Stephens

Harold Weitzberg

SIGNATURES STILL PENDING ON 3
As of this writing just after 6:00 p.m. the certification of the signatures for Genis, Hopkins and Rader is pending.

TWO NEW GUYSThe only surprises are Tom Hopkins and James Rader - names that are unfamiliar to many who follow local politics. I've placed calls to both men to chat with them about their reasons for filing to run for city council. I'll report more when I know it.

SALESMEN...
Mr. Rader is an electronics salesman who lives on the Westside of town.
Mr. Hopkins is an "international broker", working for MONEX and lives in the north part of town.MORE TO FOLLOW...
I have no idea what their views are on any of the major issues in town. Hopefully, a conversation will enlighten us. In the meantime they're all off and running...

For Your Viewing "Pleasure"

SOMETHING TO WATCH INSTEAD OF THE OLYMPICS
Just a short note to help you with your weekend viewing.

WATCH THE SPARKS FLY
The replay of the Special Emergency City Council meeting on August 9th, described in my previous post, is available for viewing.

STREAMING VIDEO...
As is usually the case, you can watch it be streaming video HERE.

OR, JUST WATCH TV
And, if you wish to watch it tonight and over the weekend you can view it on Costa Mesa Television, Channel 24 on Time Warner Cable or Channel 99 on ATT U-Verse. The schedule for this weekend beginning tonight follows:

Thursday, August 09, 2012

Sue Lester Withdraws

AND NOW THERE ARE SEVEN...
Late this afternoon council candidate Sue Lester announced that she's dropping out of the race. Her complete statement appears on the Daily Pilot as a commentary, HERE.
I've known that she was considering dropping out for some time, but
promised to keep it under my hat until she actually made her
announcement.SHE'S CORRECT...
I've read her explanation - she didn't REALLY owe one to anybody -
and think she hit the nail on the head. Her assessment of the current
state of Costa Mesa politics is frighteningly accurate.

NO LONGER A ONE-TRICK PONY
When she arrived in town a few years ago she was a one-trick pony -
medical marijuana was her issue. She's gone through a lot dealing with
the turmoil around that issue, including being forced to close her
business. And yet, through all that she remained very positive and
tried to work beyond that narrow focus to make our city better. Her
voice at the speaker's podium was always respectful and her opinions
were well-thought out.HOPE SHE STICKS AROUND
I believe she made the right decision for the right reasons and I'm glad
she's part of the activist infrastructure of our city and hope she
continues to find ways to make a positive impact.

FRIDAY IS THE DEADLINE
The filing deadline is 5:00 p.m. Friday, August 10th. At the end of
business we should know just who has actually decided to run for city
council. It is widely assumed that there will be at least six
candidates, maybe more. We'll see. Once we know we'll begin to present
our further views of them.

Council "Fixes" A Mistake To Fool Voters

PLENTY OF HEAT, NOT MUCH ILLUMINATIONIn a short, but heated, emergency meeting of the Costa Mesa City Council
this afternoon, the council approved changes to Exhibit A, Ballot Descriptions, Summary and Enumerations of Powers. The result has been called a cover-up by some. They are probably correct. The proceedings generated a lot of heat but not much light. Read on..
A PROCESS FRAUGHT WITH ERRORSFormer contract City Attorney and current contract Special Council Kimberly Hall Barlow
guided the council through the discussion, beginning with a lengthy
apology to the council and public for having to be there in the first
place. She acknowledged that confusion between her office and the City
Clerk caused this problem. This process has been cursed from the
beginning, when a "clerical error" - later defined as a "significant
professional failure" - and another "clerical error" (with a little help from yours truly) on the noticing
requirements on an end-run they tried kept Jim Righeimer's Charterfrom the June ballot.

UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Before Public Comments councilwoman Wendy Leece wondered, since the changes are to a document already submitted to the Registrar of Voters, would the folks who oppose the Jim Righeimer's Charter
and who authored the argument against it be afforded the opportunity to
modify their presentation? The answer from Barlow was, no, because the
deadline for that document was August 7th. Conveniently, the deadline
for the document in question is on the 10th.

STEPHENS SETS THEM STRAIGHT
During Public Comments council candidate and lawyer John Stephens and an author of the argument against Jim Righeimer's Charter,
led off with a clear, crisp presentation of just what the main
modification being proposed does - hides the truth from the voters who will
make their decision in November based in great part on what they read in
that document. Even though the entire charter will be provided to
the voters, few will take the time to read it - they'll read the
summary. Stephens and others suggested that the major change - it
deletes reference to no-bid contracts and thereby misleads the voters -
may have been a direct result of proponents of the charter reading their
opposing document, then modifying the Summary to attempt to neutralize
part of their discussion. He wrapped up his presentation with the
following statement:

"So, what we have here is a situation, I think, where the council
read our argument and did not want, in the ballot summary and
enumeration, the term 'no-bid contract' because it tracks our argument.
So, essentially what's happening here, what I think, and you know - and
I'm not speculating on what you think - is you want to take that
language out so the voters don't know about it. And what you're voting
on is to cover up a 'bad fact'. The bad fact is no-bid contracts. When
my opponent in a case tries to cover up a bad fact, I like that. I
like it for two reasons. It highlights that the opponent has recognized
that the fact is bad. That is, that the charter allows for no-bid
contracts under 401(c). And it also undermines the credibility of my
opponent. So, I'm asking you today, please vote in favor of these
changes because I think it substantially helps the anti-charter movement
because it gives us a great argument on the substance and the
credibility of the pro-charter movement." NO SPEAKERS IN FAVOR...

Another half-dozen residents rose to speak against this maneuver - there were NO speakers in favor of it - most of whom expressed significant concern about this move.FOLEY LIGHTS THE FUSE
The real fireworks happened when former councilwoman Katrina Foley interrupted Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer as he questioned Director of Public Services Ernesto Munoz
about no-bid contracts - clearly reading word-for-word from the
argument against the charter that had been submitted earlier in the week
and filed with the Registrar of Voters. She, in requesting a point of
order, said the following:

"Member Righeimer is taking the ballot argument against the
charter and asking questions regarding the ballot argument against the
charter and asking the staff to give opinions about the ballot statement
against the charter. It's not appropriate."

FOLEY, PART 2
Righeimer ignored her and went on with his train of thought, continuing
to interrogate Munoz about no-bid contracts. When he completed his
interrogation and yielded the floor, Foley, again, stepped to the
speaker's podium and said the following:

"Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask the City Attorney and the City Manager
if the public is going to be allowed to provide their opportunity to
question staff in a public hearing regarding the statement in favor of
the ballot? As Mr. Righeimer has used guise of an emergency meeting to
correct some grammar and fix some statements to the ballot argument in
order to ask questions of staff in a public meeting on the record and
use it as an opportunity to attack the statement against the charter.
It's improper and illegal."

BEVER THREATENS FOLEY WITH EJECTION
All the while Mayor Eric Bever, obviously peeved at Foley, tried
to get her to be quiet. He talked over her - or tried to - called the
Sergeant-at-arms and threatened to have her removed from the chambers if
she interrupted again. High drama, indeed.A SET-UP...
It was VERY clear to the 35 people in the audience what was going
on. Righeimer was using his position of authority to stifle dissent of
his Charter and to deceive the voters, once again. I doubt if anyone in the audience this
afternoon actually believed Barlow's protestation that she didn't know a
thing about the arguments. With the exception of the subterfuge to
hide the reference to no-bid contracts, the other changes could have
been as an administrative modification without the need for a council
meeting.

A VISION OF WHAT MAY BE AHEAD
I believe what the folks viewing the tape of this meeting will take away
from observing this proceeding is that we're just seeing a little taste
of what will be in store for us if Jim Righeimer's Charter
is passed and he and his cronies remain in power. They already have
demonstrated over and over again an unwillingness to follow the rules
that protect us from abuse. If this charter is passed - with it's
woefully inadequate safeguards from abuse - Righeimer and his pals will
just make up the rules as they go along. Based on their performance
over the past 18 months or so, I certainly don't believe those rules
will benefit the residents of this city.

A MESSY FALL AHEAD
So, now the fun begins. We have five candidate forums ahead of us over
the next couple months at which the voters will be able to form their
own judgments of the candidates for city council and the wisdom, or lack
thereof, of voting in Jim Righeimer's Charter. It's going to be a very messy fall.

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

Emergency Charter Meeting Tomorrow *(Amended)

DUARTE CALLS EMERGENCY CHARTER MEETING
Contract City Attorney Tom Duarte has requested an Emergency
City Council meeting, tomorrow, Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 3:30 in
City Council Chambers to make what is described as "minor changes in
ballot description enumeration of powers document.

STAFF REPORT
You
can read the staff report for the July 31st meeting at which the vote
was taken to place Jim Righeimer's Charter on the November 6th ballot HERE.

EXHIBIT IN QUESTION
You can read Exhibit A, Ballot Description, Summary and Enumeration of Powers, HERE. This is the section that apparently will receive "minor clean up changes".

*THE ACTUAL EXHIBITYou can read the actual staff report, issued late this afternoon, which shows the modifications, HERE.This is a HUGE problem, since the arguments for and against this bogus scheme have already been submitted. The deadline for their submission to the Registrar of Voters is the same time listed below. That means the opponents of Jim Righeimer's Chartermay not have enough time to evaluate and, if necessary, modify their argument opposing this thing.

DEADLINE IS FRIDAY
The
drop dead date for submission of all Charter- related documents is
Friday, August 10th at 5:00. The City has already submitted the
necessary paperwork, but will have to include the modifications as a
result of this meeting promptly.

WHAT'S BEHIND THIS?
I'm VERY curious about this "emergency" meeting. I wonder what sleight of hand may be at play here, after all the arguements have been submitted? Will these changes result in material changes that will affect the arguments as presented? How sad, indeed, that this council has made us so distrustful of their actions that I even think about that!

Short Meeting - No Surprises

FINALLY!
An a very short Costa Mesa City Council meeting Tuesday evening - it
only ran a little over two hours - there were no surprises, unless you
count those folks who arrived expecting to do battle for Wendy Leece
on her request for a re-hearing of the Banning Ranch Traffic Mitigation
payoff. That item was pulled from the agenda earlier in the day - I
reported it in my earlier entry. Even so, several people stood and
offered their views on the subject - none in support of the council
action.

MATHEWS APPOINTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION
The remaining "big" item on the agenda, the appointment of a replacement for Jim Fitzpatrick on the Planning Commission offered no surprises. Parks and Recreation Commissioner Jeff R. Mathews
was appointed on a 4-1 vote - Wendy Leece voted no - and will serve out
the remainder of Fitzpatrick's term which ends in January, 2015.
Unless, that is, he is runs and is elected to a seat on the Costa Mesa
Sanitary District. Then he would face exactly the same situation that
Fitzpatrick faced - the incompatibility of the two positions. In Joe
Serna's coverage of the meeting, HERE, Mathews is quoted as saying he would resign if elected to the Sanitary District Board.

DID MATHEWS BUY THE SEAT?
Serna also raises the question of Mathews campaign contribution to Steve Mensinger in June. This will require a little more research tomorrow, but if Mathews DID
contribute $250 or more to Mensinger in June, then Mensinger should have
disqualified himself from the vote. Also in question is whether
Mathews contributed to Colin McCarthy's campaign, too. If so,
that also creates a problem with his appointment because McCarthy, as
the Chairman of the Planning Commission, was the biggest proponent of
Mathews for this position and led the vote that recommended him to the City Council.

BIKE ORDINANCE PASSED
The council also passed the Bicycle Ordinance, although not without some controversy. In fact, Mayor Eric Bever
voted against it, stating that it penalized residents just to address a
problem with homeless people. Staff members indicated that, although
this ordinance would become law in 30 days, it would NOT be enforced until sufficient bike racks are in place in public spaces - probably not until the first of the year.

WHAT'S RIGHEIMER UP TO NOW?
During council member comments Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer
expressed, in very aggressive terms, concern for the issue of the
proposed turnover of the TeWinkle Park Sports Complex to Big League
Dreams. The task force formed to study this issue had many unanswered
questions when it was disbanded - much to the consternation to many of
the members. Righeimer mentioned several, including parking, alcohol
being sold too close to a school - both of which are issues that need to
be resolved with the Newport Mesa Unified School District. I chuckled
when he mentioned that some of the problems might be resolved "now that we have a professional Recreation Manager, Bob Knapp". Well, as great a guy as Knapp may be, and as "professional" as his background is, he is NOT an experienced municipal Recreation Manager. Personally, I hope the experience he DOES
bring to the job he was just handed helps make our municipal recreation
programs stronger, especially since this council seemed determined to
gut them only a year ago.GRAND PIPE-DREAM
And, in an another stream-of-conscienceness rant, Righeimer fantasized
about folding Fairview Park, Talbert Park and part of Banning Ranch into
one grand, 1,000 acre Santa Ana River Park - that would belong to Costa
Mesa and would provide trails to the sea. Where the heck is that
coming from? Does he know something about Banning Ranch that he's not
telling us?

Tuesday, August 07, 2012

Re-hearing Request Of Banning Ranch Deal Yanked From Agenda

NO HEARING ON THE RE-HEARING TONIGHT

Late this afternoon the request by councilwoman Wendy Leece to have a
re-hearing on the controversial Traffic Mitigation agreement between the
proposed developers of the Banning Ranch and the City has been removed
from the agenda of the council meeting this evening.

NBR REQUESTS WITHDRAWAL
It's
my understanding that representatives from Newport Banning Ranch
requested that it be withdrawn until they had a chance to review the
council's modifications of the original agreement.

POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST REVIEW
It
was also exacerbated by the complication of the request of the State
Fair Political Practices Commission by Leece to review the case for any
possible conflict of interest she might have in this matter. That
review will not be completed several weeks. So, she also requested the
item to be withdrawn.

IT'S OFFICIALLY OFF THE AGENDA

So, the issue is OFF the agenda and anyone wishing to address it will have to do so during the Public Comments section of the meeting.

A STEALTH MOVE?
It appears to me that this might have been an end-run around the system. If NBR officials review what the council approved and sign it, then there is NO reason for it to come back to the council for any action. It will be a done deal before Leece or anyone else can request a re-hearing downstream. We'll see.

About Me

REGISTRATION REQUIRED TO COMMENT
* To register, email to thepotstirer@earthlink.net :
* Pen name, (do not use "Anonymous") full name, valid email address and telephone number
* 1 pen name per person. Don't use another persons proper name.
* Comments without prior registration will be rejected - NO EXCEPTIONS
* Details at http://bit.ly/16kGDVh